By on September 10, 2010

Police officers in the commonwealth of Virginia can track the movements of motorists with secretly installed satellite tracking devices on their own authority, the state court of appeals ruled Tuesday. On February 1, 2008, Fairfax County police had attached a GPS tracking device to the work van of David L. Foltz, Jr based on a hunch that Foltz may have been involved in a series of crimes. The officers did not bother obtaining a warrant or asking the permission of the company that owned the van. The department used such devices on 159 such occasions between 2005 and 2007 but no policy guidelines were ever drafted to govern their use. Using a magnet and tape, an officer stuck the GPS unit under the van’s bumper while it was parked on a public street.

In this case, the hunch proved correct. Five days after the tracker was placed, police followed the Foltz and were able to stop him in the midst of an assault. A trial judge ruled that “reasonable suspicion” was sufficient for any officer to install a GPS tracking device on a suspect’s automobile, insisting that the there is no right to privacy on a public street. The appeals court agreed, noting that neither the US Supreme Court nor Virginia’s highest court have ruled on the specific issue of GPS use.

“Because the actual act of simply placing the GPS device in the bumper of appellant’s work van conveyed no private information to the police and because appellant did nothing to prevent the public from observing the bumper, we find he did not exhibit an expectation of privacy in this area of the van,” Judge Randolph A. Beales wrote for the majority. “Although appellant contends that people commonly do not want to purchase vehicles that can be tracked by the police, it seems just as common for people to purchase cars that have devices installed that allow tracking of the vehicle.”

The Virginia court distinguished its ruling from the Massachusetts Supreme Court which ruled against GPS spying last year (view opinion). The Virginia majority claimed that use of self-powered GPS trackers did not constitute a “seizure” under the Constitution, unlike the vehicle-powered GPS tracker used in the Massachusetts case. Instead, it sided with a Ninth Circuit federal court ruling that compared attaching a physical spying device to the car with a little girl temporarily crawling under a bumper to retrieve a lost ball. The court majority brushed aside concerns that this surveillance power could be misused.

“Several other appellate courts have acknowledged a very legitimate concern that, if the police are allowed to randomly track whole sections of the population without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, then privacy rights may well be violated,” Beales wrote. “However, this case does not involve dragnets and mass surveillance, so these warnings are not as relevant here.”

Focusing solely on the case at hand, the court found no problems with the methods police employed.

“As appellant’s movements in his home were not tracked — only the movements of the work van were recorded — no recognized privacy right was violated when the police used the GPS device to track the van’s movements on the public streets,” Beales wrote.

Chief Judge Walter S. Felton, Jr agreed that Foltz should have been convicted solely based on eyewitness testimony of the police officers involved. He disagreed with the majority that any ruling should have been made on the broader Fourth Amendment issue. A copy of the decision is available in a 100k PDF file at the source link below.

Source: PDF File Foltz v. Virginia (Court of Appeals, State of Virginia, 9/7/2010)

[Courtesy:Thenewspaper.com]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

7 Comments on “Virginia Appeals Court Upholds Warrantless GPS Spying...”


  • avatar
    MarcKyle64

    Big Brother is watching you.

  • avatar
    Ralph SS

    “A trial judge ruled that “reasonable suspicion” was sufficient for any officer to install a GPS tracking device on a suspect’s automobile, insisting that the there is no right to privacy on a public street.”

    Well, this should take care of that other item about being able to videotape police in the course of duty in a public place.

  • avatar
    TR4

    So exactly how do these tracking devices work?  The only part GPS can do is allow the device to figure out where it is.  Some other link like a cell phone or other RF transmitter must be present to transmit the GPS-derived location to the cops.

  • avatar
    Dynamic88

    ” … Instead, it sided with a Ninth Circuit federal court ruling that compared attaching a physical spying device to the car with a little girl temporarily crawling under a bumper to retrieve a lost ball…”

    WTF?

    • 0 avatar
      Steve65

      Well, the little girl could cling undetected to the undercarriage, and then report back to the police on the subjets whereabouts and movements.
       
      Realistically though, this is not fundamentally different than assigning police officers to tail him until they caught him. Just cheaper and more effective.

  • avatar
    john.fritz

    So I can install my own GPS tracking devices on our town’s police cars. Without their permission or their knowledge. Right?
     
    I crack myself up.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Art Vandelay: Sony makes great phones. They don’t have a carrier deal so they aren’t huge in the US....
  • golden2husky: Fleet use is probably best suited to deal with the shortcomings of recharge times – they...
  • ToolGuy: I am unreasonable and irresponsible. My Porter-Cable 737 corded “Tiger Saw” reciprocating saw...
  • Eaststand: until electric vehicles offer an advantage to IC, no ones buying these novelties en masse. There has to be...
  • loopy55: Here in San Diego the US has its own “border” just before the entry into Mexico. This has license plate...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber